[Patrick_Mucci]

Why isn't there an appreciation for the inherent enduring values as manifested in the original designs ?

Why do clubs feel the need to surgically alter their course, usually to follow the current or the latest fad, only to attempt to restore the architecture at some later date ?

And, why do clubs break the continuity of the original design by introducing holes or features totally out of context with the original design ?

[Joe Hancock]

Just as i sit here and type this response on a computer, rather than writing it with a feather and ink, I would say that it is human nature to think that we can improve on the original idea. If we don't try, how will we know whether or not something is an improvement?

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

What Joe says.

It would be interesting to compare gca across the decades with clothes and hair styles.  How was the gca in the hieght of the beehive hairdo craze?  Perhaps its all culture that seeps into everything.  America is about change.

After years of depression and war, I can certainly understand how the "greatest generation" decided it was time to make every thing new and modern to help forget the past they knew.  I can also understand the great designs of both the 20's and 90's - the money was flowing and there were lots of great artists at the top of their games. I can also understand the 30' style, etc.

You have to remember that its just a very small amount of folks who think the Golden Age should have been the be all end all of design. And, in fact, we are remembering the very best of that era, which should stand, versus a lot more of the modern era.

In saying that, I presume Pat is talking of Golden Age clubs. You have to recall also that many thought those courses got away from the values of the old Scottish courses to form an American game.

Im too tired to talk about individual holes being out of character.

[Ian_L]

It's easy to forget that some courses have benefited from tinkering.  Pebble Beach and Lahinch are two courses built in the 20's that many feel have evolved into greatness.

Of course, there are many many examples of the opposite...

[Jim Nugent]

Some totally inexperienced guesses:

1.  New management at the course
2.  New golf committees or chairs at the country club
3.  New members
4.  New architect comes along, after original dies, gets ear of the club.

However, weren't many great classic courses constantly changed, for years after they first opened?  Both by the original architects and others?  Oakmont, Pine Valley, NGLA, Merion, ANGC, Pebble, Pinehurst #2, TOC come to mind.    

Sometimes these changes create better products.  

[Tom_Doak]

A.  Because it is easier to follow than to lead.

B.  Don't forget that "restoration" may be a fad, too.

C.  I think that holes out of context with the original design are just as often about construction as they are about design.  For example, Riviera has been trying hard for some time to restore features of their golf course, but the guys who are carrying out the work never built any features like Billy Bell's bunkers ... they are trying but they just don't have the knack for it, so those features stick out, even though they're in the same place as the originals.

[Mike Sweeney]

Why do clubs feel the need to surgically alter their course, usually to follow the current or the latest fad, only to attempt to restore the architecture at some later date ?

Patrick,

Do you think TPC Boston, TPC Sawgrass or Kiawah - The Ocean Course will someday be returned to their original Palmer and Dye architecture from opening day? All three modern courses have had major renovations. It seems all the critics today like the course changes. 

C&C turned the 9the hole at Friars Head from parkland-like to dune-like. Clearly the dunes are a fad and we should plant some trees on the 9th at FH???

Should Atlantic go back to their original bunkering? Should they reverse the recent changes back to opening day?

Should Roger remove the new centerline bunker on 3 at Hidden Creek? Clearly centerline bunkers are a fad today?

Should MPCC remove the Rees Jones Par 3 along the Pacific on the land that opened up after original Raynor course opened?

Last but not least, should we wipe out the Mucci renovation at Boca Rio and go back to the original design? Oh I forgot, YOUR renovation was the one that was well thought out!!!

[Sean_A]

I agree with others.  A lot of change was and is good stuff.  That said, a lot of change was not so good.  Much seems to depend on who is in charge, which courses and when the work was done. 

I think the higher concern for me is why folks feel the need to spend lots of money to change something which is perfectly fine if not always sublime.  This search for perfection in design is an impossible dream because architecture is subject to the "new" ideas which in truth aren't new at all.  Jeepers, it wouldn't surprise me if there are clubs out there who have made changes back to full circle and not even realized it. 

Whether we like it or not, change is necessary, but the goal should be to have purposeful change rather than a hodge podge of crap thrown together over time without direction. 

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Why isn't there an appreciation for the inherent enduring values as manifested in the original designs ?

Why do clubs feel the need to surgically alter their course, usually to follow the current or the latest fad, only to attempt to restore the architecture at some later date ?

And, why do clubs break the continuity of the original design by introducing holes or features totally out of context with the original design ?

Pat,

Should the Merion members remove the drainage pond on #7 West and be subjected to wet turf/closing the West for the winter/poor conditions for the sake of "appreciation for the inherent enduring values as manifested in the original designs."

I want to play golf, not look at golf!!!



Is good drainage a fad?

[Phil_the_Author]

What is really forgotten in this discussion are the large numbers of courses that Tilly, Ross and many other Golden Age architects redesigned, lengthened, "improved", added holes to, re-routed and even "tweaked." Yet often it is these courses that we want to protect from modern architects and memberships from doing the same things to...

As long as there have been golf courses, newer members and players have sought to change them to make them better; and almost always because they "knew what they were doing."

[Jeff_Brauer]

 Don't forget that "restoration" may be a fad, too.

So true, especially in this economy and the typical normally average economy we are likely to face the next few decades.  Not only will someone question why we should replace bunkers in locations that are no longer in play, but they will question every bunker on the golf course for cost and maintenance reasons. And as more courses convert from private to public, or upscale public to moderate fee public, those bunkers will also come under scrutiny, just as they did in the 30's.

The here and now, and the budget nearly always trumps any desire for restoration to some point back in time, again, other than the very top clubs.  We just like talking about the very top clubs as if we have some real say in what they should do, even though we have no say at all.  Basically, its like the rest of America talking about Hollywood celebs.

[Adam Clayman]

Apparently it boils down to ignorance and/or a lack of sophistication. Oakmont, shiney and thankfully quite a few others have learned how important the little things are and made changes according to what they learned.   It was the small group of golden age designers who were trying to implement the principles of the auld sod and carry them over to the new world. Their attempts should be emulated because they intellectualized the justification for feature placement and construction.  Ian Linford. There's at least one person who think PB's evolution is one of golf's top ten blunders. And, the more they tinker with it today the more I agree with that person. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Ignorance and lack of sophistication about what? 

Is it a real question to ask that "if the game changes, should the playing fields change with it?" or do we just accept what was once done without critical questioning?  Did the handful of GA guys get EVERYTHING right?

[Anthony Butler]

What is really forgotten in this discussion are the large numbers of courses that Tilly, Ross and many other Golden Age architects redesigned, lengthened, "improved", added holes to, re-routed and even "tweaked." Yet often it is these courses that we want to protect from modern architects and memberships from doing the same things to...

Very true. Reading up on the history of Newport CC before playing there in June, I found out Tillinghast was on the property within 10 years of Donald Ross expanding it from the original 9 hole layout.*

Whatever changes Tillinghast made occurred right under the nose of Ross, since he spent his summers just up the road in Providence. Perhaps he was too busy tweaking one of his own designs in the North East. e.g. Essex Country Club, which Ross worked on over a period of 25 years.


* In the modern era, Ron Forse did work on the course after the club hosed the US Amateur in 1995. It appears this was not a renovation project, but work 'suggested' by the USGA before the US Women's Open was held there in 2006. This work included the installation of a new-fangled concept now known as fairway watering.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -
I don't think it's coincidental that until the mid 1980s Golf Digest called its Top 100 list something like "American's Most Testing Courses".  I think there has always been (especially in America) a tendency to equate great architecture with testing/difficult architecture, and to think that the architect's primary role is to create hazards/challenges from tee to green, and throughout the round.  Given this, it's understandable that members (who want to belong to great courses) would push to have their courses stay or become "great tests".  And as times pass, that means added length and 'relevant' bunkers and narrower fairways and faster greens -- until the members realize a) that they don't enjoy the course anymore, or b) are reminded that there are other ways to define greatness, and so push to go back to the 'original'.

Peter      

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff. My only response to your 1st question is that fundamentals don't change. Apparently altering the canvas for the few that hit it farther has put the sport in jeopardy. Behr's warnings about designing for the whims of the day would include what you consider "changes" to the game.  The finer points must be unlearnable for those who can't divorce their own whims and perferences.

[RJ_Daley]

Just trying to work with this off the top of my head...

It seems to me that first and primary cause to the desire to change things is to meet new distance and B&I performance enhancements by changing the field of play from what was previously designed to the highest and most widespread B&I of that original era when the particular course was first built.  Whether that original course was built in 1890 to the best B&I of that time, or in 1925 and built new at that time and correlating to the best B&I of that day.  When a new equipment advantage came out, the previous era designs obsoleted to some degree that caused those members of the older clubs to look at the most recent top designs that were responding to the changes, and pine for course characteristics like the newest designs.  So, that could have meant an original architect's work from 1910 being obsoleted and thought to be behind the curve to the very same architects newest designs some 20 years later.  So, what the archie learned in the intervening 20 years of keeping up with the latest B&I and competitive and craftsmanship improvements were desired by the older club to integrate and modernize to what the new perception of 'the best' had become.  That process can be placed in any 20-30 year era since B&I improvements and also construction equipment improvements always happended in any segment of 20-30 year passing eras. 

The next thing that contributed to the rationale to tamper with original designs was aesthetic fad of what is cool looking besides golf functional.  As parkland courses proliferated, trees and inland terraine features were more artfully or aesthestically integrated into the most modern designs, and the herd mentality of the older clubs felt like they had to have some of that as well.  The same with water features.  The more water features were integrated into more modern designs, the more the older clubs without the water features felt like they had to have some of that too.  They all began to crave the 'signature hole' look, as a "keeping up with the Jone's club" mentality.  So, whether the new aesthetics fit good golf design playability sense or not, they had to get some of that.

Then, as noted above, the actual need to redesign for lack of good understanding of engineering aspects mostly of drainage caused many a remodel that just evolved contrary to original design concepts. 

It seems to me that there is no one or even tidy set of rationale or factors as to why GCA is subject to fads.  Some fad is response to functionality and well conceived, and some is superficial and owing more to the herd mentality of a club organization that is inherently responsive to peer group pressure to keep up with what they percieve as 'the best' despite if it makes good golf sense or not.  Each club or each golf course management/ownership entity has its own culture and value set that tend to respond to changing circumstances in their own unique way.  The only thing constant it seems is that issues extraneous to the golf course as a physical thing as originally designed, changes.

[Dale Jackson]

There are some very well thought out responses above and I agree with many of the points made.

However, I will ask another question, name something in modern society that is not subject to fads?  It seems to me that with the rapid rate of technological progress, and the media-induced short shelf life on all it shines its klieg lights on that everything is subject to fads.

While golf is a game that honours its history and traditions, there is no reason why we should be immune from that impact.

[RJ_Daley]

I will ask another question, name something in modern society that is not subject to fads?

hmmm, not much subject to fads except fashion design in this culture...


I'll ask another question in light of this:  Is strict adherence to original design features of old golf courses or resistance to any changes akin to this sort of "'fundamentalism" mentality? 

[George Pazin]

If we don't try, how will we know whether or not something is an improvement?

Such dangerous thoughts...

[Joe Hancock]

If we don't try, how will we know whether or not something is an improvement?

Such dangerous thoughts...

It's almost as if I'm laughing in the face of it, isn't it, George?

 

[RJ_Daley]

Isn't this all a matter of philosophy guiding specific policy decisions of certain groups (be they golf clubs or other groupings in society) that resides at our core differences?  Is it the difference of inclinations of progressive change agents or a conservative bedrock fundamentalist principles approach to ideas.  Sort of like... Yes, we can change things to see if we can try to improve the flawed conditions; Or, no we shouldn't tamper with fundamental things and risk screwing  up the established status quo worse, even if that status quo are not perfect?  

[Bradley Anderson]

Why isn't there an appreciation for the inherent enduring values as manifested in the original designs ?

Why do clubs feel the need to surgically alter their course, usually to follow the current or the latest fad, only to attempt to restore the architecture at some later date ?

And, why do clubs break the continuity of the original design by introducing holes or features totally out of context with the original design ?

Patrick,

Most clubs are visited by an architect every 20 years or so. My theory is the bunkers are good for about 10 years, and then it takes another 10 years to rally the consensus that is needed for yet another bunker tune-up. Chances are very good that the original architect has passed away or retired and a new architect is now working on top of the original architect's work.

Only in the last ten years or so have we developed the tools for doing this work in a way that preserves the work of the preceding architect, but we didn't have those tools 25 years ago and before. Back in those days you lost all the original soil layers with the equipment that you brought in to do this work in a timely and cost effective manner.

Every architect has a style that distinguishes his work from the work of other architects. And that is basically how golf courses change. I don't think it is about fads but simply about different architectural styles. I don't think it is fair to say that architects are commercially driven by fads. I'm not saying that that is what you are implying here by the way Patrick, but I am sure that many people think that. Rather I think that succeeding architects are just going to do things differently. And what else is to be expected?

I think the whole golf community needs to reckon with the reality that golf course features fall apart pretty quickly. Especially on the golf courses that get played on more the 30,000 rounds. In my opinion we need to bring our architects back every three to five years, with smaller tools, to stay ahead of the deterioration process.

I also think that since we are now at the point where this has been done so many times on our golf courses, that they have lost their identity, we can pretty much begin from scratch. And now it is really critical that we choose the absolute right style, because moving forward, we will be able to maintain and keep that style intact for a longer time. If a club had a high-architectural watermark at some point in its past, that might be the style to return to. 

[RJ_Daley]

Every architect has a style that distinguishes his work from the work of other architects. And that is basically how golf courses change. I don't think it is about fads but simply about different architectural styles.

Bradley, would you say that this part of what you said about "work of the architects and architectural styles" is synonymous with construction techniques?  Isn't it fair to say that different GCAs use different national construction firms or conversely have their own 'in-house' basic feature shaping crews, and how those construction people actually go about the nuts and bolts of how they shape and engineer features has a great baring on the styling?  Isn't there something of a mass production 'technique' approach that is something of a coventional wisdom of how to construct things as a matter of efficient technique in the big construction firms, and that those techniques are passed down to new workers as a sort of guild trade practices?  Whereas, in the smaller 'boutique' golf course architect, design-build firms, where it is closer to build one at a time as a whole team effort use more technique variances that may be used to reflect a different stylization of features and evoke a 'hand-made' craft work? 

The same holds true of resto-remo techniques.  Do the styling differences reflect conventional wisdom of large firm efforts to control quality and consistency through universal practices on every job more so that the one at a time design-in-house builders adapting sometimes on the fly and responding to individual circumstances as they are discovered as they go?  And, that is an overall reflection of construction technique as much as architectural faithfulness to an ODG's look? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff. My only response to your 1st question is that fundamentals don't change. Apparently altering the canvas for the few that hit it farther has put the sport in jeopardy. Behr's warnings about designing for the whims of the day would include what you consider "changes" to the game.  The finer points must be unlearnable for those who can't divorce their own whims and perferences.

Adam,

I agree the fundamentals of gca don't change a lot.  But then you go on in your first post to reference "the little things that mean a lot". They may not change either, depending on just what you are talking about there.  But I suggest that most gca's of all eras basically sought to put hazards in primary play zones.  Moving or removing bunkers set 120-180 yards from the middle tee would be a value judgement between "do it as it was done" and "do it as it was meant to be played" and probably has nothing to do with the longest hitters, but length advances overall.

I am still trying to get my head around what appears to be a condescending tone to most golfers and club members in your first two posts. It sounds to me as if you believe there are only a few truly enlightened, and of course you are one of them, and the rest "just don't get it." While that may be true, I am much more in favor of populism than you are Maxie. 

I grant you that there have been some unfortunate reconstructions of golf courses from my point of view. But I agree with those who say change is probably inevitable and a lot of it has been for the better.  New tech isn't all about clubs and balls, its about drainage, turf, irrigation, etc.  I have seen examples of each basically taking away the chance to reasonably keep a golf course as it was once.  Add in nature, which we all know changes the ground on which courses sit, and change can be seen as inevitable.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()